General Assembly Rules for ProposalsThe General Assembly is an international organization. Diplomacy is key to ensuring mutual cooperation between members with the objective of creating a better world through legislation.

Proposal Basics: Proposals must be written as laws, not commentaries, editorials, etc.

Duplication: From the verb 'to duplicate' - to do repeat a specific action or concept over again. Proposals may elaborate in specific areas of policy, where broad legislation exists but may not replicate specific policy. Authors may re-iterate in general terms a minor part of existing policy to provide support to their proposal.

Contradiction: From the verb 'to contradict' - to state opposite or deny a concept or idea. Proposals which conflict with explicit clauses within an active resolution will be removed.

Committees: Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.

A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths

Committees continue to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution

Single-use committees that died when its resolution was repealed, may be revived for a relevant new proposal

Ideological Ban: Proposals cannot wholly outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies. However, proposals can target specific practices, such as slavery.

House of Cards: Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent. However, repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal.

Real World Reference: WA laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein, so your proposal should not contain any real world references. This includes but is not limited to, world leaders, real world persons, places, organizations and/or events. Generic references, however, are permitted, such as religions, political philosophies, languages, general scientific terminology, and phenomena.

Repeal Basics: Resolutions are not written in stone.

Amendments: A supplementary set of clauses that either enhance or modify an active proposal's text. Proposals cannot amend existing resolutions because the game's coding does not allow for it. To introduce new legislation, the active resolution must be repealed. This applies to appeals as well.

Repeals: Legislation to remove an active resolution. Repeals can only be submitted by click the repeal link at the foot of the target resolution. Repeals submitted using anything but the repeal function are automatically removed.Other grounds upon which a repeal can be removed:

National Sovereignty: Theoretically any resolution can be removed with this sole argument. For this reason, repeals require unique arguments tailored to the target resolution. NatSov may be used as an additional unique argument but it cannot take over the repeal. Its variations include cultural and religious sovereignty.

New Legislation: A repeal cannot introduce new legislation and can only seek to repeal the existing resolution. A new proposal on the same topic may be submitted after passage of the repeal.

Honest Mistake: Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution.

Mechanics: There are aspects of gameplay and the game itself that cannot be legislated on, either because it requires a code change or it breaks the 'fourth wall'.

Meta-Gaming: Proposals cannot break the "fourth wall" or attempt to force events outside of the WA itself. This includes and is not limited to forcing the Security Council to carry out specific actions, mandating that regions carry out specific actions, and forcing compliance on non-member nations.

Game Mechanics: Proposals can not affect any aspect of how the game works. This includes and is not limited to mandating ejection of member nations for non-compliance. Suggestions for improving or modifying gameplay can be posted in the Technical forum.

Category: A proposal's category determines the effect on member nations.

Category: Proposals must be submitted under a category. The proposal's content must align with the chosen category. The category determines the proposal's statistical affect on member nations. Categories have either a Strength or Area of Effect. A breakdown of the Categories and their applicable Strength or Area of Effect can be found in the post below.

Strength: This determines the effect a proposal has on a nation's policy. A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong. Anything in between is Significant. Some categories don't use strength but rather a specific area, so proposals will need to specific the area of policy affected from a pre-populated list of options. These options do have a statistical effect and strength.

Optionality: Proposals, upon becoming resolutions are mandatory and binding on all member nations, thus language used must reflect this. Any language permitting nations to engage in non-compliance or opt-out are disallowed. However, for 'Mild' strength proposals, terminology such as "URGES", "RECOMMENDS" is acceptable.

Format: Other universal standards for all General Assembly proposals.

Operative Clause: Every proposal has to have some recognizable effect on member nations, such as requiring them to take action or encouraging them to support a policy change.

Language: Proposals must use understandable English. Conventional legalese and Latin terms are acceptable within reason. Proposals written in incomprehensible English or a foreign language will be deleted.

Branding: Proposal authors cannot list their names, pronouns ("I" or "we"), or use acronyms to circumvent this. However, they can and should credit their co-author(s), where contribution is notable or significant. Authors may list up to three co-authors.

Blockers: Proposals cannot be "repeal-proof" or prohibit legislation on broad and specific issues. However, 'Blockers' themselves are not illegal provided there is additional action (eg. GAR#10: Nuclear Arms Possession Act).

Joke/Silly Proposals: Proposals intended solely to be 'humorous' or a 'joke' are removed, however, authors may post these in the [SILLY] GA Joke Proposals Only thread.

Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the theft of another person's work. If a player wishes to submit another's proposal, explicit permission must be obtained and submitted either through the Getting Help page or Moderation so we have a paper trail. If not, the offender is ejected and the proposal is deleted.

Responses to Violations

Penalties

Proposal Removal: When a proposal is removed for any of the above violations, the player will be notified via the GenSec Status line on the proposal page. For egregious violations, a Voice of Mod telegram may be sent to the author.

Ejection: A player who has repeated submission of illegal proposals will result in removal from the WA. The exception to this is for plagiarism and extraordinary cases. Exceptionally severe infractions will earn an instant ejection.

Exceptions: Warnings and ejections will not be issued under the following circumstances:

Accidental submission of multiple copies of your proposal, however, you may get warned for spamming if it appears that it was more than an accidental double post. The proposal author can remove their own proposals via the link on the proposal page.

Further Information & Help

If you have any further questions about the rules or matters related to the General Assembly, you can post your queries in the General Assembly Q&A thread.

Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic OasisRetired Major and Field Marshal of The Black HawksRetired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunctFormer Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" AwardRetired Secretary of Defense of StargateTerror of The Joint Systems AllianceMall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.Frattastan quote of the month: "The Italian Stallion is meant to be the good cop. He isn't very good at it though."

General Assembly Proposal CategoriesThere seems to be some confusion as to what the existing WA proposal categories do, so I'll try to describe them in more detail here. Note that any reference to "government" refers to the governments of WA member nations, not the WA itself. References to "Personal" and "Civil" Freedoms are identical and completely interchangeable.

Precisely what it sounds like. Any Environmental resolution will cause a hit to your industries while improving the environment. Any proposal written for this category should preferably talk about industry having to somehow pay for environmental improvements. Of course, this could be abstracted by saying that the government taxes industry more to implement an environmental plan of some kind. Environmental resolutions affect one of the following Industry Areas: Automobile Manufacturing, Uranium Mining, Woodchipping [EDIT 17/02/2014] Automotive, Mining, Logging, the new areas of Manufacturing, Agriculture or Fishing, or All Businesses.

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Civil Freedoms. "Human Rights" increases these freedoms while "Moral Decency" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of WA member nations; Shall the WA require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? If it's an issue about how you choose to live your life (or if you have a choice), then it's Civil Freedoms. Total Personal/Civil Freedoms are one of the components of Anarchy. Zero Civil Freedoms are Totalitarian regimes.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the centre. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

These are almost exactly opposed types of resolutions. Both affect Economic freedoms. "Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms while "Social Justice" reduces Economic freedoms. "Social Justice" increases government spending on welfare and targets living standards. Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulation there is on business/industry or how much government spending goes to helping poor/sick people. Total Economic freedom is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Zero Economic freedom is a completely government-controlled economy. Creating a Food and Drug Administration in all WA member nations, or creating a Securities and Exchange Commission in all WA member nations is imposing a mild form of Economic control, and therefore a mild reduction of Economic freedoms; you're imposing restrictions on what businesses and industries may do and you're moving away from a completely-uncontrolled Laissez-faire system.

In terms of Economic Freedoms, "Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the centre. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

With regard to the Social Justice category and the three strengths, when determining whether or not your policy is mild, strong or significant ask yourself, are you covering general welfare, or are you including healthcare:

Glen-Rhodes wrote:You're better positioned to know if Social Justice actually increases healthcare. If it doesn't, then I withdraw my complaint. But if it does, then I think this discussion is only talking about one side of the solution.

It does, but only if the strength of the resolution is "significant" or "strong", not "mild."

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Political Freedoms. "The Furtherment of Democracy" increases these freedoms while "Political Stability" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Political policies of WA member nations; Shall the WA require its members to grant more or less say in the operations of their government? Who makes the decisions? Whether or not you even get to vote on anything (or anyone) is a Political Freedoms issue. Total Political Freedoms represent something akin to pure democracies, where every single citizen has a direct vote in every single matter. Zero Political Freedoms means that the citizens (or subjects, or slaves) have no say in the operations of government whatsoever. Imposing regulation on campaign finances is a mild form of reducing Political Freedoms.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.

Gun Control - A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.

Remember that Personal/Civil Freedoms have subcategories. (Actually, Economic and Political Freedoms also have subcategories, but it's Civil that concerns us here.) "Human Rights" and "Moral Decency" affect the overall government control on the personal lives of citizens. "Gun Control" affects the degree of freedom regarding the private possession and use of firearms.

"Tighten" increases government regulation on the private use of firearms while "Relax" reduces these regulations. Note that proposals under this category are Strong to Significant.

As of October 16, 2014, this category may also be used to ban or compel the private use of firearms, though not as a blanket "all forms of firearms under any circumstances" (hint: think practical personal exemptions).

This proposal category discusses ONLY the private, personal possession of firearms, and does NOT address the use of guns by agents of the government (the police and military). If you want to talk about police or military weaponry, then use either "Global Disarmament" or "International Security".

Precisely what it sounds like. "International Security" increases government spending on the police and military while "Global Disarmament" reduces government spending on the police and military. Both resolutions affect the military more than they do the police, but they do affect both.

These categories can cover any kind of weaponry used by a nation's police or military: including, but not limited to, conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical, space-based, and non-lethal.

Gambling - A resolution to legalize or outlaw gambling.

Precisely what it sounds like. "Outlaw" will ban gambling (and eliminate the gambling industry) in all WA member nations while "Legalize" will allow gambling in all WA member nations. The "Outlaw" subcategory cannot be used to implement age restrictions, or partially restrict the activity. Partial restrictions don't outlaw the practice; partial bans belong in Moral Decency.

Precisely what it sounds like. "Outlaw" will impose a drug ban, "Legalize" and "Promote" will remove drug bans. They also have effects on the "Drugs" subcategory of Civil Freedoms; "Outlaw" will instantly impose total government control on drugs, "Legalize" will relax government control on drugs, and "Promote" will impose zero government control on drugs. "Promote" will also increase overall Civil Freedoms, but will not push it past the centre.

Advancement of Industry - A resolution to develop industry around the world.

This is a wide-ranging pro-business Category that more accurately reflects the power of corporations in Jennifer Government. Don't know why Max didn't give us more like this when he created the game. Guess he's an old softy.

Area of Effect

First choice is Environmental Deregulation. Rather than devoting the whole proposal category to reverse the effects of "Environment', we've chosen a middle ground of 'all business'.

Second, Labor Deregulation. This one is going to benefit corporations at the expense of the worker. Surprise!

Cultural Heritage is another of those lovely amorphous categories that lets you do those wonderful meaningless things the RL UN loves so much. For a small fee, of course.Example - GA#72 – Cultural Heritage Protection

Most of these will improve nations' health at government expense, though no doubt industry will be eager to help. Bioethics sets limits on how far you can go.

Area of Effect

Healthcare: If universal health care has always been your Great White Whale, you may be able to persuade others to join the hunt. But for those with simpler ambitions, it's about governments coughing up funds to improve the health and general wellness of their people. Now you don't have to try disguising government funding for health as social justice (or recreational drug use, either).Examples to come

International Aid: Well, of course we want all the wealthier member governments to spend their money on poor sick foreigners ... and their citizens will gladly support that, naturally.Examples to come

Research: Makes everyone cleverer, doesn't it? Industry profits from the side-effects, governments just have to give it a little bit of seed money, and it practically runs itself. Public and private research and the study of health and medicine benefit. Nothing could possibly go wrong.Examples to come

Bioethics: Just because escaped superbugs might cause one or two silly little epidemics somewhere unimportant, people are being scared into putting the brakes on Science! You say it's setting ethical international standards for healthcare and research. I say it's the free individual's civil rights freedoms being chipped away by the nanny state!Examples to come

Getting Additional Help

As extensive as these explanations are, sometimes there are things that still aren't clear and you need additional help. Ask your fellow players for advice. When drafting a WA proposal, do it on a word processor on your own computer. Then, post the draft as a new topic here in the "World Assembly" forum and ask for advice. Hopefully, experienced players will come along and point out anything in your draft proposal that violates NationStates rules and needs to be changed. Moderators are not always available to answer questions on draft proposals, so experienced players are the next best thing. This is essentially a peer review process.

Do not underestimate the value of informal peer reviews. When you submit a proposal to the WA, you certify that you understand the proposal rules and that you are subject to Moderator action if the proposal is deemed to be in violation. "I didn't know" or "I didn't understand" is not an acceptable excuse. If your nation gets thrown out of the WA, then that's permanent. In that case, you'll have to start over with a new nation if you want to continue participating in the WA. Get help before you get in trouble.

Written by Cogitation; September 24, 2004 and February 23, 2005, reworked by The Most Glorious Hack, and polished by the NationStates moderation team. Health category added and Environmental areas of effect readjusted 17/02/2014. Health areas of effect updated 29/05/2014 ... and again, 23/08/2014 (Ard). Gun Control category effects extended to regulated ban, 16/10/2014 (Ard).

Last edited by Wrapper on Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:16 pm, edited 13 times in total.

Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic OasisRetired Major and Field Marshal of The Black HawksRetired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunctFormer Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" AwardRetired Secretary of Defense of StargateTerror of The Joint Systems AllianceMall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.Frattastan quote of the month: "The Italian Stallion is meant to be the good cop. He isn't very good at it though."

(ooc: I consider this a dodge by both players and the mods. I have heard second and third hand that players when expressing concern about these matters have been ever so politely told to buzz off, I bring it into the open so it may be addressed in the open rather than ignored individually...so I may judge for myself without a filter just what the actual mechanical difficulty is and why it IS a mechanical difficulty)

Players and mods have diddly to do with amendments. The only way to get new game code is to have one of the admins write it. On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Max Barry, [violet], and SalusaSecondus upgraded the game to include code for repealing previously passed resolutions. Up 'til that point, the standing rule was 'you passed it, you have to live with it'.

Amendments / repeals had been a sore point for players since the beginning of the game, and UN Mod Enodia had to formulate a rule making both illegal, since the only way to implement them was for the admins to make adjustments to the code with the passage of each game-altering amendment. Their response? "No way, Jose."

The admins worked long and hard on finding a way to address the problem of permanent UN resolutions. They decided that the amendment process was simply too difficult to code effectively, so they went with the repeal code and the strikeout of the prior resolution. Frankly, none of our current admins have the time or inclination to revisit that code, and the problem with amendments is just as difficult now as it was then. That door probably won't ever be reopened.

Let's have a look at the mechanical problem, using Historical Resolution #4 as an example.

Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

Let's amend this proposal by taking out the word "not". How would you code an Amendment to reflect this minor change? Would it be different than adding the words "or treasury" between 'citizens' and 'of'? How about changing "for any purpose" to "for any military purpose?

Now, multiply those effects times all the passed resolutions, and correctly anticipate the possible phrasing choices that will be used in all the unwritten proposals yet to hit the floor. Write some code to address all those potential changes. Incorporate it into a simple game where the actual mechanical effects are hidden from the players, so they can't know what the effects really are. Are you starting to see the problem yet?

That's the true, non-evasive answer. Now you see why we don't like writing it out every week when the question gets raised for the umpteenth time.

Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic OasisRetired Major and Field Marshal of The Black HawksRetired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunctFormer Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" AwardRetired Secretary of Defense of StargateTerror of The Joint Systems AllianceMall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.Frattastan quote of the month: "The Italian Stallion is meant to be the good cop. He isn't very good at it though."

Any player may issue a challenge on the legality of a proposal that has been finished or submitted. GenSec will not review proposals still in their drafting stages, as player critique should be the first defense against an illegal proposal. If GenSec believes a submitted proposal violates the Proposal Rules, but a challenge has not been submitted, it will still review the proposal and deliver a public ruling.

To file a challenge against a proposal:Note: This process does not apply to violations of the OSRS rules, plagiarism accusations, or attempts to create new game mechanics. To report those types of violations, please submit a Getting Help Request.

1. If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organized legal argument. This argument should list the rules broken and why. To be more helpful, if a player is able to find a past ruling on the issue, they should consider citing it in their argument.

2. The filing player must create a new thread with the [Legality Challenge] tag, with their full argument, the challenged proposal's text, and a link to the proposal's drafting/debate thread. This helps to keep the process organized and aids GenSec in noticing when a challenge has been lodged. GenSec will allow the author and other interested parties a reasonable amount of time to post briefs in support of or opposition to the challenge. Players should avoid getting into tit-for-tat quote battles, and instead address competing arguments with organized responses. These threads should be treated like a courtroom, avoiding off-topic discussion, personal fighting, peanut-gallery comments, etc. In other words, if you don't have anything substantive to add to the legal issues at hand, refrain from posting in Legality Challenge threads.

3. GenSec will deliberate, asking players further questions if necessary. Upon reaching a majority opinion, GenSec will post their ruling and notify the mods if the proposal needs to be removed from queue. Rulings will include a majority opinion and any dissenting opinions. Precedent-setting rulings will be recorded in a public compendium.

Last edited by Sedgistan on Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:59 am, edited 13 times in total.

Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic OasisRetired Major and Field Marshal of The Black HawksRetired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunctFormer Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" AwardRetired Secretary of Defense of StargateTerror of The Joint Systems AllianceMall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.Frattastan quote of the month: "The Italian Stallion is meant to be the good cop. He isn't very good at it though."